Differentiating innovation priorities among stakeholder in hospital care
نویسندگان
چکیده
BACKGROUND Decisions to adopt a particular innovation may vary between stakeholders because individual stakeholders may disagree on the costs and benefits involved. This may translate to disagreement between stakeholders on priorities in the implementation process, possibly explaining the slow diffusion of innovations in health care. In this study, we explore the differences in stakeholder preferences for innovations, and quantify the difference in stakeholder priorities regarding costs and benefits. METHODS The decision support technique called the analytic hierarchy process was used to quantify the preferences of stakeholders for nine information technology (IT) innovations in hospital care. The selection of the innovations was based on a literature review and expert judgments. Decision criteria related to the costs and benefits of the innovations were defined. These criteria were improvement in efficiency, health gains, satisfaction with care process, and investments required. Stakeholders judged the importance of the decision criteria and subsequently prioritized the selected IT innovations according to their expectations of how well the innovations would perform for these decision criteria. RESULTS The stakeholder groups (patients, nurses, physicians, managers, health care insurers, and policy makers) had different preference structures for the innovations selected. For instance, self-tests were one of the innovations most preferred by health care insurers and managers, owing to their expected positive impacts on efficiency and health gains. However, physicians, nurses and patients strongly doubted the health gains of self-tests, and accordingly ranked self-tests as the least-preferred innovation. CONCLUSIONS The various stakeholder groups had different expectations of the value of the nine IT innovations. The differences are likely due to perceived stakeholder benefits of each innovation, and less to the costs to individual stakeholder groups. This study provides a first exploratory quantitative insight into stakeholder positions concerning innovation in health care, and presents a novel way to study differences in stakeholder preferences. The results may be taken into account by decision makers involved in the implementation of innovations.
منابع مشابه
Nurturing Societal Values in and Through Health Innovations; Comment on “What Health System Challenges Should Responsible Innovation in Health Address?”
Aligning innovation processes in healthcare with health system demands is a societal objective, not always achieved. In line with earlier contributions, Lehoux et al outline priorities for research, public communication, and policy action to achieve this objective. We endorse setting these priorities, while also highlighting a ‘commitment gap’ in collectively addressing system-level challenges....
متن کاملReconciling patient and provider priorities for improving the care of critically ill patients: A consensus method and qualitative analysis of decision making
BACKGROUND Providers have traditionally established priorities for quality improvement; however, patients and their family members have recently become involved in priority setting. Little is known about how to reconcile priorities of different stakeholder groups into a single prioritized list that is actionable for organizations. OBJECTIVE To describe the decision-making process for establis...
متن کاملResearch priorities in mental health, Part 2: an evaluationof the current research effort against stakeholders' priorities.
OBJECTIVE To examine the current distribution of mental health research in Australia and compare this with the priorities of various stakeholder groups. METHOD A content analysis was carried out on a year's worth of published articles and a year's worth of competitive research grants. A questionnaire for stakeholders was developed in which respondents were asked to rate priorities for researc...
متن کاملDevelopment of a clinical research agenda for acute kidney injury using an international, interdisciplinary, three-step modified Delphi process.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Although acute kidney injury is common and significantly increases the risk for intensive care unit and hospital mortality, little is known about its true incidence or how it can be prevented. Furthermore, key unanswered questions remain about the optimal diagnosis and treatment of patients with acute kidney injury. An international, consensus-based, prioritized resear...
متن کاملThe Conceptualization of Value in the Value Proposition of New Health Technologies; Comment on “Providing Value to New Health Technology: The Early Contribution of Entrepreneurs, Investors, and Regulatory Agencies”
Lehoux et al provide a highly valid contribution in conceptualizing value in value propositions for new health technologies and developing an analytic framework that illustrates the interplay between health innovation supply-side logic (the logic of emergence) and demand-side logic (embedding in the healthcare system). This commentary brings forth several considerations on this article. First, ...
متن کامل